Bailey v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 21

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 20 Joint MOTION to Remand to SSA filed by Commissioner of Social Security. It is RECOMMENDED that the motion to remand, Doc. No. 20 , be GRANTED, that the decision of the Commissioner be REVERSED pursuant to Sentence 4 of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and that this action be REMANDED to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings. Objections to R&R due by 11/25/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 11/7/2013. (pes1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
CHARLES E. BAILEY,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Civil Action 2:13-cv-0060
Judge Graham
Magistrate Judge King

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The parties have jointly moved to remand this case for further
administrative proceedings pursuant to Sentence 4 of 42 U.S.C. §
405(g).

Joint Motion for Remand, Doc. No. 20.

The parties

specifically ask that the administrative law be directed to consider,
on remand, whether plaintiff was disabled due to statutory blindness
prior to November 1, 2011 and to re-evaluate the severity of
plaintiff’s other impairments at step two of the sequential
evaluation.
It is RECOMMENDED that the parties’ joint motion to remand, Doc.
No. 20, be GRANTED, that the decision of the Commissioner be REVERSED
pursuant to Sentence 4 of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and that this action be
REMANDED to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings
consistent with the foregoing.
If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this Report
and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen (14) days, file
and serve on all parties objections to the Report and Recommendation,

specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part
thereof in question, as well as the basis for objection thereto.
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

28

Response to objections

must be filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy
thereof.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to
the Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to
de novo review by the District Judge and of the right to appeal the
decision of the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation.
See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of
Teachers, Local 231 etc., 829 F.2d 1370 (6th Cir. 1987); United States
v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

November 7, 2013

s/Norah McCann King_______
Norah McCann King
United States Magistrate Judge

2